World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /  
 

Contiguous but not shared

 
Author Solivagant
Partaker
#1 | Posted: 2 Aug 2008 02:46 
m_m - thanks for the following response on this under my "mixed" thread "Greatest Altitude Variatons".
"The Libyan rock art site and Algerian mixed site are next to each other. but i'm not sure if the cultures portrayed in their rock arts are common to possibly merit a "transborder" designation (i believe that the dating is quite different for both)"

I have started a new thread to continue this discussion!

By suggesting the Connection i wasn't suggesting that we limited it solely to sites which had such common shared attributes that they should have been linked into a transborder site -just that we identified where there was "contiguity"! Though whenever this situation occurs that is a legitimate question - one of the purposes of Connections is to highlight such issues.

I wasn't aware that the Tassili (Algeria) and Tadrart (Libya) were contiguous so I have learned something already! Tassili was the first to be inscribed in 1982 and in its evaluation it was noted that the "natural and cultural zone extends beyond the border of Algeria" (Mali was suggested as a possible candidate). 3 years later the link to Tassili is mentioned in the Tadrart evaluation - but without any comment that the 2 should be linked. Perhaps UNESCO wasn't so keen on transborder sites inthose days!

The Tassili art is said to date from 6000BC -100CE and the Tadrart art from 12000BC to 100CE. Despite this apparent "extra age" at Tadrart all the indications in the evaluations are that the 2 sites are certainly similar enough to have been considered together IF that was what UNESCO and the 2 States Parties had wanted.

In any case they should be added to any ""Contiguous but not Shared" Connection!

Author elsslots
Admin
#2 | Posted: 2 Aug 2008 09:26 
What about Iguacu/Iguazu (and the other Double entries)?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 2 Aug 2008 11:56 
Yes, I had forgotten this connection. It contains 2 types of sites at the moment - those which are contiguous (Iguassu and Sundarbans) and those which are not (eg Koguryo, Routes of Santiago and Guarani Missions). The "new" suggested sites could just be added :-
Ruwenzori (Uganda) - Virunga (DRC)
Los Katios (Columbia) - Darien (Panama)
Tassili (Algeria) - Tadrart (Libya)

These are really the same as Sundarbans but just named differently on different sides of the frontier. I think it IS an interesting and insightful fact that there are these sites next to each other which cover the same heritage but were not inscribed as a single trans-frontier site.

Unfortunately "Double sites" isn't really a very meaningful name but I can't (as yet) think of anything better!

Author elsslots
Admin
#4 | Posted: 2 Aug 2008 14:31 
"Doubles that should be one"?
I also like your "Contiguous but not shared" (I'm tempted to write or say 'contagious') - the routes to Santiago should be contiguous too (or do these hikers skip some km's?), and also the Guarani missions (some of them across both sides of the border are really close). The Koguryo is the most difficult one (though it must have been one contiguous empire once!).

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#5 | Posted: 2 Aug 2008 14:58 | Edited by: Solivagant 
In fact the Santiago routes are not "contiguous" - that for Spain starts at the frontier and goes all the way to S de C. ICOMOS didn't like this and felt it broke the rules - their evaluation talks of a special meeting hosted by Spain to consider this - but I can't find any minutes/report etc.
The French site just consists of (a lot ) of individual sites -and doesn't include a frontier one! so they don't actually join up!

Author elsslots
Admin
#6 | Posted: 2 Aug 2008 15:45 
What a mess! I think that the French Santiago site is (one of) the worst WHS decisions ever.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#7 | Posted: 3 Aug 2008 03:50 
I think I would have to agree with you on the French Santiago sites.
It just seems to make no sense apart from to give France a new site. I have still never fully comprehended the whole Santiago site.
I can understand that it is the trunk route through Spain and the four feeder routes from France, but;
1. Why are they seperate sites?
2. Why are other sites included? e.g Why is Mt St Michel part of the inscription? (it is not part of the four main routes) if this is included why are the abbeys in Caen not part of the inscription when these were a major point of meeting for Pilgrims who crossed the English Channel?

Author m_m
Partaker
#8 | Posted: 4 Aug 2008 02:24 
oh wait, and what about the south china karst world heritage? maybe we should include it on the list, along with ha long bay. this was suggested in the minutes since they are located in roughly the same region, what is interesting here is the south china karst is mostly located inland (any water-related view would be from a river), while the ha long bay has a marine setting.

also, i think the committee also recommended that two of the three chinese natural sites inscribed in 1992 could be renominated as one unit. as i recall, there's a mountain/forest gap between the two (minshan, i think) and they deemed that it has world heritage potential. so they are located somewhat contiguous and in the same region too.

lastly, do we also consider "twinning" agreements as proposed by the committee? like in the case of the portuguese laurisilva and spanish garajonay np, since both represent remnant laurel forests in atlantic islands? i'm not really familiar with the specifics of twinning agreements, if it just means greater cooperation in terms of management plan and scientific research, or it really refers to nominating the multiple sites as one entry on the list. i remember that there was also a twinning suggestion between yosemite and one of the chinese sites. and when i googled "twinning world heritage sites", i found this out:
http://www.sinoptic.ch/shanghaiflash/texts/pdf/200206_Shanghai.Flash.pdf

so based on this, twinning might just refer to greater cooperation in terms of management and site protection.

Author m_m
Partaker
#9 | Posted: 4 Aug 2008 03:40 | Edited by: m_m 
oh by the way, sites in this connection pertain to those that are near to each other, and display similar values, hence, may have the chance to be considered as a single world heritage unit. do we also need connections for those contiguous but not related with each other? this may just be similar to the world heritage hotspots connection though. but those concentrated in cities might be of separate connection, like cities with multiple world heritage sites. got this idea from the "global city" article in wikipedia. it was noted as a criteria in assessing if the city is of global standard, although the source of the criteria is quite dubious since the link goes to the official world heritage website, and not to any that explicitly states that having world heritage sites is indeed a criteria (ok, i'm beginning to sound repetitive here). if this pushes through, some questions: how many world heritage sites in a city for it to qualify in the connection (at least two, but i think having two is too few, then again, what about cities wherein the entire centre has been inscribed, so obviously, one heritage site might do). and what about those that might not be located within the city proper (i.e. suburbs)? so do we include that as well?

some other side notes in connection: i don't know if it's a classic film, the zhang yimou's "hero" used jiuzhaigou valley as a setting, dunhuang was also used, but mogao caves was not really a direct location there (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299977/locations). also, for the iguazu falls, this setting was also used for the latest indiana jones movie, obviously, it's not yet a classic though.

Author m_m
Partaker
#10 | Posted: 4 Aug 2008 03:51 
m_m:
some other side notes in connection: i don't know if it's a classic film, the zhang yimou's "hero" used jiuzhaigou valley as a setting, dunhuang was also used, but mogao caves was not really a direct location there (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299977/locations). also, for the iguazu falls, this setting was also used for the latest indiana jones movie, obviously, it's not yet a classic though.

interesting, find in the imdb site a search page wherein you films are sorted by shooting location: http://www.imdb.com/LocationTree

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#11 | Posted: 4 Aug 2008 03:55 | Edited by: Solivagant 
The mists on this subject are clearing a bit - in my mind at least! I think we enter "problem land" once we move away from "Contiguity" and on to "Similarity" when defining "Double". Whether 2 sites are "contiguous" is a matter of fact - and applies whether they are exactly/nearly the same in geology, ecology etc across unnatural modern boundaries (most contiguous natural sites) or whether they have different but shared histories (Rome/Vatican) or whether they represent remains of the ancient cultures which might be the same or different (Tassili/Tadrart).
"Similarity" however is much more open-ended and "graded". Yes the Guarani missions arose as part of the same historic activity and the Kogurgo remains belonged to the same empire but they no doubt represent slightly different sets of buildings/remains. The buildings of Le Corbusier were designed by the same man but again will have differences in style and circumstance. The 2 Routes of S de C reflect the same historic pilgimage activity but with some circumstantial differences no doubt. Ha Long and S China Karst were (I am not an expert) created by the same geological processes. But do we extend this to Gothic cathedrals, Cistercian monasteries, Palearctic forests .......all of which have significant shared attributes! Where do we stop!

I think that the 2 situations are different and require 2 different "connections". Those which
a. are truly, unarguably "contiguous" across 2 "States Parties"
b. have significant "shared" value, history, ecology, geography etc etc.

If this second "connection" is pursued there will need to be tight definitions to avoid linking too many sites which have only vaguely similar attributes - in "ad absurdum" we just finish up replicating "Connections"!! I would suggest that the "shared value" needs to be enough for them to have been inscribed as a single transboundary (or even "within boundary" since, as m_m points out, it is possible for such similar sites to exist even WITHIN a country) site IF the States parties had chosen/been persuaded to do so. UNESCO/WHC practices on this vary over time however. I will be interested to see how the Transboundary Silver/Mercury Route emerges covering apparently Mexico, Spain and (!!) Slovenia. There is no doubt that there is more interest now in looking/pushing for such sites (countries might also "catch on" and realise that it is their best way of getting an inscription!). The concept emphasises "Internationalism" and, no doubt, has other benefits in sharing management practices, skills etc. There must be a number of sites on the current list which could/should have been so inscribed if international cooperation had been greater and patriotism less! We always cite the routes of S de C as being a good e.g of a missed opportunity and I always cite Hadrian's Wall as being a good e.g. of where a country has swallowed its "patriotic pride" and allowed its iconic site to be subsumed! The problem in making the "Connection" must be to draw a line. Perhaps 1 rule could be that the ICOMOS/IUCN evaluation of at least 1 of the sites suggested a linked nomination either at the time or in the future. And call the connection "Potential single site". Of course all "Contiguous sites" (other than Rome/Vatican?) would (probably?) have this "connection" too.

Author m_m
Partaker
#12 | Posted: 6 Aug 2008 22:46 
hi els. another site partly included in the route of santiago de compostela: bordeaux. some basilicas there are part of the route, as stated in the nomination file. this site is indeed one of the most complicated when it comes to overlapping with other properties. so probably, the same could be said if the silk route is successfully inscribed on the list.

Author m_m
Partaker
#13 | Posted: 15 Jan 2009 04:13 
i also remembered that the rock paintings of sierra de san francisco and el vizcaino sanctuary are contiguous (i think). the fact that mexico originally nominated these as one mixed site, but eventually separated into two, may indicate such. however, similar to the on pointed out earlier, this is an example of those contiguous that don't have a shared universal value/different universal value.

Author Xeres
Partaker
#14 | Posted: 15 Jan 2009 13:23 
In regards to the Sierra de San Francisco and el Vizcaino Sanctuary, they may share a boundary, but not values.
that is a critical point; and alternatively, you could have two non bordering sites, that nevertheless should be one. my example of this is the Canadian rocky mountain parks and Watson international peace park. they represent the same eco-region, and same values, in a perfect world they should be one site.

Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Contiguous but not shared

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑